Safety, efficacy and cost of three cervical cytology sampling devices in a prenatal clinic

Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist

Volumn 41, Issue 10, 1996, Pages 749-753

  Smith Levitin, Michelle ^a,b   Hernandez, Enrique ^a,c   Anderson, Lisa ^a   Heller, Paul ^a,c  

^a DREXEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Division of Gynecologic Oncology   (United States)

Author keywords

cervical smears; cervix neoplasms

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PREMATURE FETUS MEMBRANE RUPTURE; PREMATURE LABOR; PRENATAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAFETY; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; CERVIX UTERI; EPITHELIUM; FEMALE; FETAL MEMBRANES, PREMATURE RUPTURE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; OBSTETRIC LABOR, PREMATURE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0029914140     PISSN: 00247758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Koonings P, Dickinson K, d'Ablaing III G, et al: A randomized clinical trial comparing the cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:241-245
2. Reissman S: Comparison of the two Papanicolaou smear techniques in a family practice setting. J Fam Pract 198X;826:525-529
3. Murata P, Johnson R, McNicoll K: Controlled evaluation of implementing the Cytobrush technique to improve Papanicolaou smear quality. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:690-695
4. Pretorius R, Sadeghi M, Fotheringham N, et al: A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:831-836
5. Boon M, deGraaff Guilloud J, Rietveld W: Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:843-848
6. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, et al: Cervical cytology: A randomized comparison of four sampling methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1772-1779
7. Hoffman MS, Hill DA, Gordy LW, et al: Comparing the yield of the standard Papanicolaou and endocervical brush smears. J Reprod Med 1991;36:267-269
8. Rivlin ME, Woodliff JM, Bowlin RB, et al: Comparison of the cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears in pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1993;38:147-150
9. Orr JW, Barrett JM, Orr PF, et al: The efficacy and safety of the Cytobrush during pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol 1992;44: 260-262
10. Tyau L, Hernandez E, Anderson L, et al: This Cell-Sweep: A new cervical cytology sampling device. J Reprod Med 1994;39:899-902
11. Elias A, Lintherst G, Bekker B, et al: The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol 1983;27:225-229
12. Selvaggi S: Spatula/cytobrush vs. spatula/cotton swab detection of cervical condylomatous lesions. J Reprod Med 1989;34:629-633
13. Weitzman G, Korhonen M, Reeves K, et al: Endocervical brush cytology an alternative to endocervical curettage? J Reprod Med 1988;33:677-683
14. Harrison DD, Hernandez E, Dunton CJ: Endocervical brush versus cotton swab for obtaining cervical smears at a clinic: A cost comparison. J Reprod Med 1993;38:285-288